Religion, Religiosity, and the Moral Divide in Canadian Politics

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Social group conflict along regional, ethnic, linguistic, and religious cleavages is deeply embedded in the Canadian historical experience. Contemporary analyses, however, have deprecated the role of religion and religiosity in shaping Canadians' political attitudes. This analysis demonstrates that religion and religiosity are significant correlates of Canadian attitudes on moral issues, paralleling the pattern observed in the United States. It demonstrates that the religious cleavage has been a salient feature of Canadian politics for some time and considers whether the contemporary moral divide could serve as a portent of cultural-religious conflict in Canada if a “political entrepreneur” articulated an issue agenda linked to these religion-based differences.</jats:p>

The remaining core: a fresh look at religiosity trends in Great Britain

“…Actions and policies from one side may leave the other feeling targeted and alienated. Since religion and religiosity are known to have a strong influence on values and political choices (Ang and Petrocik ; Beard et al ; Norris and Inglehart ; van der Brug, Hobolt, and de Vreese ), a significant divide in the religious landscape could extend to the political one. It could also extend to other social domains which religion is known to affect, such as physical and mental health (Koenig, King and Carson ), volunteering (Lim and MacGregor ; Monsma ), family formation (Eggebeen and Dew ; Village, Williams and Francis ) and educational track (Mayrl and Oeur ).…”

Religion and Grassroots Social Conservatism in Canada

“…In addition, federal political parties have seen a number of changes-including the creation of the socially conservative, western-Canadian-based Reform party in 1987; its rebranding as the Canadian Alliance party in 2000; and the merger of that party with the Progressive Conservatives in 2003, which formed the current Conservative party of Canada. Many understand the association between level of religiosity and vote choice as an issue voting effect (Raymond, 2011;Smidt et al, 2010;Van der Brug et al, 2009). Those actively involved with a religious group are more likely to be regularly exposed to right-leaning values within their congregations, families and faith-based schools, as well as within their network of friends and acquaintances who are more likely to share their religious identities and beliefs (Adkins et al, 2013;Ang and Petrocik, 2012;Harrison and Michelson, 2015;Nicolet and Tresch, 2009;O'Neill, 2001;Putnam and Campbell, 2010;Raymond, 2011;Reimer, 2003;Reimer and Wilkinson, 2015;Smidt et al, 2010;Van der Brug et al, 2009). To be clear, however, not all organized religious groups have more conservative teachings and values on issues such as premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, family life and gender roles.…”

Secularization and the Wider Gap in Values and Personal Religiosity Between the Religious and Nonreligious

“…By contrast, more secular individuals with lower levels of religious commitment tend to be more liberal in their outlook (Adkins et al. ; Ang and Petrocik ; Finke and Adamczyk ; Layman ; Norris and Inglehart ; Putnam and Campbell ). Additionally, it is especially institutionalized types of religiosity that are associated with a more conservative value orientation where the individual is concerned (Adkins et al.…”

“…Religiously active individuals who attend religious services regularly and who are involved with a religious group are much more likely to hold more traditional moral values, especially on contentious issues such as abortion and homosexuality. By contrast, more secular individuals with lower levels of religious commitment tend to be more liberal in their outlook (Adkins et al 2013;Ang and Petrocik 2012;Finke and Adamczyk 2008;Layman 2001;Norris and Inglehart 2004;Putnam and Campbell 2010). Additionally, it is especially institutionalized types of religiosity that are associated with a more conservative value orientation where the individual is concerned (Adkins et al 2013;Hayes 1995;Nicolet and Tresch 2009).…”